Category: precedent

‘Through the power of precedent, international incidents involving the use of force help to clarify the meaning and interpretation of jus ad bellum, the corpus of rules arising from international custom and the United Nations Charter that govern the use of force. UN Charter Article 2(4) forbids states from using force in their international relations. Exceptions to this prohibition are acts taken in self-defence under UN Charter Article 51 or under the auspices of a UN Security Council authorization to use force under Article 42. States can also consent that another state use force in its territory, for example to combat rebel or terrorist actors. In certain cases, state practice gives rise to new interpretations of existing rules or novel exceptions emerge. Through the study of precedents scholars often consider whether or not there has been a shift in the legal landscape. To give but a few illustrations, commentators have questioned if States take measures of self-defence under Article 51 to protect nationals abroad (a justification that has been invoked at various moments, for instance by Russia in the context of the crisis in Georgia in 2008), if a right to humanitarian intervention has emerged (a discussion triggered by the Kosovo crisis in 1999), or if self-defence under Article 51 can be invoked against non-state actors (a topical debate in the post 9/11 era). Consequently, depending on the precedent’s facts and the arguments invoked by the main protagonists different legal issues can be triggered.’

‘As every barrister knows, precedents matter. To see just how much, you only have to visit the original courtrooms of the Royal Courts of Justice. Next to the bench of each High Court judge, the weighty bound volumes containing the law reports are on full display, adorning the walls, symbolically underpinning the precedents of the common law system which they faithfully record.’

‘The Court of Appeal has in the case of NE-A (Nigeria) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWCA Civ 239 decided that the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in Hesham Ali [2016] UKSC 60 is confined to cases in which the Immigration Rules are applied and does not apply to cases decided under the statutory human rights considerations introduced by the Immigration Act 2014.’

‘The Supreme Court has consolidated three cases on whether the continuing recoverability of additional liabilities in publication and privacy cases are incompatible with publishers’ rights to freedom of expression.’

‘Judges shouldn’t be frightened to set precedents. A list of those that have “gone too far” – including over a Guardian freedom of information request on the Prince of Wales’s letters – risks deterring justice.’

‘A UK court ruling that it did not have the jurisdiction to hear and determine an appeal against a decision taken by domain name dispute resolution panel will be welcomed by brand owners, an expert has said.’

‘The attorney general has refused to disclose his advice about the legality of RAF drone strikes in Syria, citing collective cabinet responsibility and the need for law officers to give “full and frank” opinions.’

‘The First-Tier Tribunal has ruled that a district council was entitled to refuse to disclose correspondence passing between one of its solicitors and various members of its planning department.’Full story

‘Sir Brian Leveson, the judge most famous for his report into press ethics, has said he does not consider himself “crushed by the European jackboot” when it comes to applying the European convention of human rights in British courts.’

‘It would be disproportionate and unjust to strike down a Precedent H budget that was signed by a firm’s in-house costs draftsman, rather than by a “senior legal representative”, the High Court has ruled.’

You’re reading a practitioner handbook and see a case referred to that seems just a little bit odd.

You read the summary in the footnotes and can’t believe it really says that and, before you know it, you’ve been side-tracked from your original research plan into actually getting a copy of the case.’